HEIRS OF TAMA TAN BUTO, represented by JAYNOL TAMA TAN BUTO vs. ERNESTO LUY
HEIRS OF TAMA TAN BUTO,
represented by JAYNOL TAMA TAN BUTO vs. ERNESTO LUY
G.R. NO. 149609
July 20, 2007
PONENTE: NACHURA, J.
FACTS:
A land located at General Santos City was originally formed part
of the property and was applied for registration on August 11, 1954 by Datu
Tama Tan Buto. He claims that he inherited the land from his late father who
was in possession thereof continuously, publicly and exclusively in the concept
of an owner, long before the end of the Spanish regime.
The land subject of Buto's application is identical to Lot 3 of
the approved plan of the Makar Townsite covered by Sales Patent and OCT in the
name of Eligio T. Leyva. The Director of Lands and Leyva opposed to the
application, as for the former, he contended that subject property forms part
of the public domain and while on Leyva’s part, because he was the registered
owner of the land, as evidenced by OCT.
On February 27, 1961, the CFI decided to grant the application for
registration of the land in the name of Buto due to the finding of fraud in the
procurement of the sales patent by Leyva.
On March 15, 1968, the CA reversed the decision of the lower court
and held that Buto failed to pursue the remedies available to him as a person
aggrieved by registration of a land under Act No. 496, which is to file a
petition for review within one (1) year from the issuance of a decree of
registration obtained by fraud; or to institute an ordinary action for the
cancellation and/or reconveyance of title. Buto, instead of filing the appropriate
remedy provided for by law, instituted an application for registration of land
previously registered.
On April 13, 1989, Ernesto Luy purchased a parcel of land under
TCT No. 34648 located at General Santos City from Eligio Leyva. On account of
the sale the TCT No. T-34648 was cancelled and on April 19, 1989, the TCT No.
T-35185 was issued to Luy.
On December 14, 2000, the RTC order the cancellation of Luy’s COT
and directed the issuance of a writ placing the heirs of Buto in possession of
the subject land. The CA, however, granted the petition for the annulment of
the resolution of the lower court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the heirs of Buto are barred
by res judicata
HELD:
Yes, the heirs of Buto can no longer question the 1968 decision of
the CA which has long become final and executory. All the requisites of res judicata are present in the case at
bar.
The requisites of res
judicata are:
(a) The former judgment must be final;
(b) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over
the subject matter and the parties;
(c) it must be a judgment on the merits; and
(d) there must be, between the first and the second actions,
identity of parties, of subject matter, and of cause of action.
The CFI has no jurisdiction to decree again the registration of
land already decreed in an earlier land registration case and a second decree
for the same land is null and void. This is so, because when once decreed by a
court of competent jurisdiction, the title to the land thus determined is already
a res judicata binding on the whole
world, the proceeding being in rem.
The court has no power in a subsequent proceeding (not based on fraud and
within the statutory period) to adjudicate the same title in favor of another
person.
Furthermore, the registration of the property in the name of the
first registered owner in the Registration Book is a standing notice to the
world that said property is already registered in his name.
0 comments :
Post a Comment